Just got done watching the rest of the debate from last night. My quick thoughts, in order of viability ...

Romney - Smart, everything the guy has touched has turned to gold, I agree more with his overall views than any of the others. Still think he's too Al Gore-ish to beat Obama. He couldn't beat out John Effing McCain four years ago. Worse the economy is in 14 months, the better his shot.

Perry - Fact he hasn't even entered the race officially and is #2 says it all about this crop of Republicans. Has a good track record, is likable, and has a strong history on job creation in an election that jobs will be the #1 issue.

Gingrich - Showed how smart he was in the debate, but the baggage is likely to be too much to overcome. He's surly, far right, and passionate on issues (Dodd/Frank, Sarbanes/Oxley) Joe Voter doesn't understand. Baggage is immense. Personal baggage, former political enemy baggage, and his entire campaign team just walked out on him.

Pawlenty - Thought he did better in this debate, but I just can't see this guy going anywhere in this race. Came out more aggressive, seemed well prepared, but I thought Bachmann and others did some damage to him on some of his history as Minnesota governor.

Bachmann - Held her own again last night and has shown strong political skills ... but is non-viable. The debt ceiling drama changed Joe Voter's opinions on the Tea Party, her record of results in Congress is non existent, the religious shit scares people, and right or wrong ... people will think she's as dumb as Palin.

Santorum - Thought he did pretty well in the debate, but he's too conservative to be viable with swing voters.

Palin - Yet to enter race, but why would she at this point? Bachmann is smarter and a better politician and they'd just split votes.

Huntsman - Guy looked terrified in the debate. All over the board on the issues. Has no identity as a candidate. If he happens to make it past Iowa/New Hampshire ... the other Repubs will cream him in the debates on his positions on traditionally right wing issues.

Paul - Guy makes sense on a lot of the things he is passionate about but he's too old and loony and people don't take him or his candidacy serious anymore a la Nader.

Cain - I like this guy ... a lot. But he has no chance. Has already said too much stupid shit, which you can't afford to do coming from the private sector without a known name. Need more people like him in politics.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

I'll assume that Romney wins the nomination based on his economic track record and that to be the focal point of the election. It won't be enough to beat Barry, though. Romney looks too fabricated, seems to have a little bit of that asshole Northeasterner complex, and the Mormon thing will be a factor.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

Romney - Smart, everything the guy has touched has turned to gold, I agree more with his overall views than any of the others. Still think he's too Al Gore-ish to beat Obama. He couldn't beat out John Effing McCain four years ago. Worse the economy is in 14 months, the better his shot.

He and Pawlenty are about as inspiring as a sheet of drywall. I expect certain members of the field to toss the RomneyCare chum in the water for the Tea Party freakshow to devour. I agree with John Huntsman when he called Romeny's job creation record "Abysmal". Yeah.... he's a regular King Midas.

Perry - Fact he hasn't even entered the race officially and is #2 says it all about this crop of Republicans. Has a good track record, is likable, and has a strong history on job creation in an election that jobs will be the #1 issue.

The only real threat to Romney as long as the Huckinator sits out, IF he can drag himself away for his dumb Pray-A-Thon. As long as he still keeps making false claims about "Texas having a balanced budget", his opponents are going to beat him over the head with "He didn't balance shit, he deferred". His state's budget crisis will get worse next year.

Gingrich - Showed how smart he was in the debate, but the baggage is likely to be too much to overcome. He's surly, far right, and passionate on issues (Dodd/Frank, Sarbanes/Oxley) Joe Voter doesn't understand. Baggage is immense. Personal baggage, former political enemy baggage, and his entire campaign team just walked out on him.

Done. He's done. The only real question is who is he is going to throw his support behind.

Pawlenty - Thought he did better in this debate, but I just can't see this guy going anywhere in this race. Came out more aggressive, seemed well prepared, but I thought Bachmann and others did some damage to him on some of his history as Minnesota governor.

Gone.

Bachmann - Held her own again last night and has shown strong political skills ... but is non-viable. The debt ceiling drama changed Joe Voter's opinions on the Tea Party, her record of results in Congress is non existent, the religious shit scares people, and right or wrong ... people will think she's as dumb as Palin.

A lot of her staff are rumored to be looking to jump ship to team Perry. And she is as dumb as Palin. Someone can only say so many batshit/dumbshit things before I consider them stupid. She used up her Stupid Statement Allowance about 2 years ago.

Santorum - Thought he did pretty well in the debate, but he's too conservative to be viable with swing voters.

Done. he's not even in the top 4 in his own fucking state. Done.

Palin - Yet to enter race, but why would she at this point? Bachmann is smarter and a better politician and they'd just split votes.

She's sooooo 2008.

Huntsman - Guy looked terrified in the debate. All over the board on the issues. Has no identity as a candidate. If he happens to make it past Iowa/New Hampshire ... the other Repubs will cream him in the debates on his positions on traditionally right wing issues.

After looking like such a dope during that debate, my dark horse should be taken out back and put out his misery. Done.

Paul - Guy makes sense on a lot of the things he is passionate about but he's too old and loony and people don't take him or his candidacy serious anymore a la Nader.

I like the guy because he's not a soul-less stooge like Romney, he has a backbone and I respect that. Pretty much the only GOPer in the field I have any real respect for. I just don't see him having any real shot though, GOP voters are way too bland and boring to vote for Uncle Ron.

Cain - I like this guy ... a lot. But he has no chance. Has already said too much stupid shit, which you can't afford to do coming from the private sector without a known name. Need more people like him in politics.

There is mispeaking because everything you say is recorded, and then there is just not knowing facts.

That's my beef. If you're going to speak on a subject, at least do the minimal effort of checking the facts. If you don't, you end up looking like an asshole, because you're either lazy, stupid, or want to distort the truth.

Bachmann said "the founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery"..... Now what kind of statement is that? They worked tirelessly to avoid addressing the issue of slavery. George Stepanopopoponoplus called her out on this, she went on some rambling nonsensical rant about John Quincy Adams...... who did campaign hard against slavery later in his politcal career, but he was not a founding father.

This crop of GOP candidates is lacking. I'm not saying that because i'm a liberal, it just is. Look at the field and tell which one of that group inspires you to vote for them. It's no different than 2004, Kerry was awful, but he wasn't Dubyah. The same thing applies to the GOP this time.

It is early, but I agree. Ryan, who is the new media rumor (they have to have one), but he has his own set of faults.

As much as Perry scares me, also already said something dumb, he has a compelling case. Then again how much of Texas is him, and how much is the pro business climate? How much does he push his religion, my slightly informed opinion is too much, though it hasn't been evident in the few days he has been a canidate.

They all have warts, and there may still be some new blood. It is still too early with too many involved. When we get into primary time I'll have an idea. Having said that there are only a few that I wouldn't vote for against Obama. Santorum (on some issues I like, but way too religious), Palin and Bachman for the same reasons (women and dumb), and probably Paul (his FP is wack and wayyyy opposite of my Neo-neo-con ideas).

Fucking Obama is so beatable too. Even on this bus trip with a golden opportunity to score points he fumbled Joe Tea Party guy being upset about being called a terrorist by Biden. He so could have made a HUGE impact if he handled that guy better, instead he made it about himself.../end rambling

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Stewart nailed it. Ron won't take his talking points from the media. They do not like that. I believe Paul wouldn't get us into a pointless war, I believe he would try to legalize pot and end the utter waste of resources known as "the war on drugs", he's by far my favorite GOP candidate.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Stewart nailed it. Ron won't take his talking points from the media. They do not like that. I believe Paul wouldn't get us into a pointless war, I believe he would try to legalize pot and end the utter waste of resources known as "the war on drugs", he's by far my favorite GOP candidate.

Exactly. He's the only true conservative in the field of GOP candidates who is serious about cutting true waste in government - e.g., the war on drugs, multiple wars, and rogue agencies like the DEA and ATF.

But instead of giving Paul his due, the media focuses on the faux conservatives like Bachmann and Perry who would legislate and government-intrude their own morality and "Christian values" into every American's life.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Stewart nailed it. Ron won't take his talking points from the media. They do not like that. I believe Paul wouldn't get us into a pointless war, I believe he would try to legalize pot and end the utter waste of resources known as "the war on drugs", he's by far my favorite GOP candidate.

Exactly. He's the only true conservative in the field of GOP candidates who is serious about cutting true waste in government - e.g., the war on drugs, multiple wars, and rogue agencies like the DEA and ATF.

But instead of giving Paul his due, the media focuses on the faux conservatives like Bachmann and Perry who would legislate and government-intrude their own morality and "Christian values" into every American's life.

He's also anti-government, unless he is mandating unnecessary medical procedures for you and your loved ones - procedures aimed at lining his wallet (he's got ties to Merck, which makes the HPV vaccine) or getting in good with the religious right:

Bypassing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

Women seeking an abortion in Texas will have to view a picture of the embryo or fetus and hear a description of its development before having the procedure, under a law that takes effect September 1.

The bill stirred some controversy in Texas, but it easily passed through the state House and Senate, both of which are controlled by Republicans. It was signed into law Thursday by Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

The law says that at least 24 hours before an abortion is performed, women must undergo a sonogram, a procedure that uses ultrasound to create an image.

One thing about Rick Perry, though - the Dems and the media should underestimate him at their own peril. The guy may be a douche, but he Does. Not. Lose. Elections. Campaigns against him are an absolute bitch and if his opponents better be ready. Texas Monthly's cover story details his political campaigns, all 10 of them:

By the way, this man has presided over budget deficits of $10 billion and $27 billion during his time as governor. The above article also shows that Texas' only real job growth has been in the government sector; the private sector here sucks as much as it does anywhere else.

Anyway, I can't think of a better potential president than a governor who, when faced with a $27 billion budget deficit, made his legislative priorities sanctuary cities and forced sonograms before abortion. Both were obviously far more important to the people of Texas in their everyday lives.

Texas is going to pay down the road for cuts to education. They already rank 50th for people over the age of 25 with a high school diploma. Which is why so many of his "job creation" was minimum wage jobs with no benefits.

I see he also wants more big government intervention by having the National Guard on the border. Which is fine, as long as residents of Texas pay for it all. But that might piss off Mexico, who has a booming trade relationship with Texas.....

Been interested in Paul for 5+ years now but he's not aligned with the current Republican or even Tea Party groups. For that he's significantly handicapped against the lobbyists that are running the party. Plus there

Terrified of Bachmann and even moreso of Perry. Actually don't think Mitt is all that bad except the RomneyCare will kill him with his base. Not exactly an endorsement for Perry when Texas people would prefer he just goes away. Look at what he's done with the budget and some ridiculous laws and that's a terrifying proposition to give him more power.

Frankly, I thought 2004 was disappointing to try and pick from, this upcoming race may take the cake.

Playing here is the closest thing to heaven. Really, I mean it's amazing to be in a place where the fans truly cherish their football team and stick behind them win or lose. We players love them, too. I feel a sense of accomplishment playing here, we are a special breed of football players with a great opportunity." ~ tOSU LB Brian Rolle

Election cycles like this one always seem to bring out somebody who nobody is talking about who end up making a huge splash. Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, has the same cred as a "hands off of us" libertarian/conservative that Ron Paul does, but with executive experience. I would bet money that those of you who haven't really heard about him before I put this up will be hearing his name on the news way more within the next few months. He's like Rick Perry when it comes to winning, but without the "this guy makes me want to vomit" factor.

I'm fiscally conservative and socially center/liberal. I want our country to have sound fiscal policies and to stay the hell out of people's personal lives. I think that is what most American's want so why do our 2 primary parties throw out choices defined by the extremes??

Republican party too often trying to appeal to the far right religious faction and the Democrats too often try to appeal to the downtrodden looking for the free promises and handouts.

Isn't there a mainstream option somewhere with a candidate who is primarily focused on the economy and returning some sense of fiscal responsibility?

I think that now 3+ years into this horible economy the average Joe voter knows that the answer isn't more freebies, social programs/spending, who promises the most or worrying about abortion laws or religion in schools, etc.. We need a candidate who's going to effectively address the Chinese Yuan/USD inbalance so that we can increasingly bring some manufacturing jobs back, cut entitlement spending, negotiate deals with S. Korea and Japan if they want the US military to continue to provide them with a big part of their defense force, etc..

I know actually implementing this stuff is way harder than just talking about it but isn't there a candidate who is focused on these issues and has some prior experience and success at implementing similar initiatives at some level??

Unfortunately it seems that Obama can't do it but none of the Republican choices seem promising either....

Some countries have moved to paying their top federal government officials large salaries ($5 million level + for prime ministers, etc.). The logic being:

1. If you want to attract the best and the brightest you need to pay them what they would make if they opted for other fields and/or other top jobs.

2. If you pay them top $ they won't need money and won't be easily influenced by lobiests or other special interests to "buy" their votes or otherwise influence them.

Do you think this would help in the US to attract better top government officials and hurt the special interest lobbying machines?? I personally don't know--it might just back fire and we could end up paying more to the same crappy politicians we already have.

Yahoo, I could not agree with either of your last two posts anymore. The options are awful.

And the US should absolutely start paying government officials top dollar. It would finally drive some actual talent out of the private sector. Along with this change, I would start a task force (led by the best) to police campaign finance, lobbying, kickbacks, and corruption. I'd have a one strike policy. Get caught, and you, as well as your big new politician salary are OUT.

Bottom line - in other countries, the most talented people are the ones crafting policy. Here - it's rich guys looking to have a little fun at the end of their career, or no-talent, slick talking bums that only care about adding earmarks to bills for their areas ... and taking care of the people that finance their campaigns ... so they can get re-elected. It's such a horrrible setup.

I'm a small government guy. But in my ideal world, I would make campaign finance part of the US budget. Every candidate gets the same amount. No more buying votes. Earmarks, loopholes, 150 page bills loaded w pork that no one reads ... that shit needs to go as well. I'd increase politician salaries dramatically, while shifting government resources more towards cutting waste in every area and fighting corruption.

It would be expensive, but right now, with government accountable to no one ... the system is loaded with no talent chumps and rife with wasted money everywhere. If someone actually had the balls to take a look at the US government, from the top down, and commit to making it run leaner, more efficiently, and with people actually being held accountable ... the task to clean it up would be paid for 1000x over.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

Been saying it for a while. We don't need a President. We need a CEO and a bunch of vice presidents.

This is not a country, it is a business. That needs Marketing and Technology and Sales and Human Resources.

Find me the best CEO of a large corporation, but not one that started that company we do not need a start up, who has been successful leading different companies of escalating size. That person will have this shit turned around by June 2013.

YahooFanChicago wrote:I know actually implementing this stuff is way harder than just talking about it but isn't there a candidate who is focused on these issues and has some prior experience and success at implementing similar initiatives at some level??

The problem is that 95% of the electorate couldn't give a shit about what is actually best for our country. We're a nation of "me firsts".

YahooFanChicago wrote:I know actually implementing this stuff is way harder than just talking about it but isn't there a candidate who is focused on these issues and has some prior experience and success at implementing similar initiatives at some level??

The problem is that 95% of the electorate couldn't give a shit about what is actually best for our country. We're a nation of "me firsts".

95% of the electorate is also too dumb/lazy to learn the real issues anymore, hence the gravitation towards extremists by both parties and in the media. Really unfortunate.

"Well then I guess there's only one thing left to do...win the whole, f***in', thing."- Jake Taylor

I live in a state that's already the 6th dumbest in the nation and Rick Perry just made drastic cuts to education again based on a "small government" philosophy. Self-serving, in my opinion. The electorate gets dumber and these assholes don't have to up their game or bring any kind of coherent philosophy to the elections whatsoever. No incentive.

YahooFanChicago wrote:I know actually implementing this stuff is way harder than just talking about it but isn't there a candidate who is focused on these issues and has some prior experience and success at implementing similar initiatives at some level??

The problem is that 95% of the electorate couldn't give a shit about what is actually best for our country. We're a nation of "me firsts".

95% of the electorate is also too dumb/lazy to learn the real issues anymore, hence the gravitation towards extremists by both parties and in the media. Really unfortunate.

95% of the electorate has simply realized the real issues don't mean dick once the election takes place. You have a get elected agenda. Once that is fulfilled, you have a what is going to get me more donations to get re-elected agenda. Followed by the what will make the the most money after I leave office agenda.

Blaming the electorate for the position this country is in is like blaming the guy who hired the captain of the titanic for it sinking.

Swerb, I agree with you completely about the campaign funding reforms and that we need to completely change the system with severe penalties for violating the rules. 80+% of the special interest influence and damage probably occurs through campaign funding.

Combining that with a plan to pay a lot more salary for the top federal government positions could be a really interesting solution. Only problem is the corrupt political/legislative machine that currently runs the country probably wouldn't be willing to adopt it.

Pup, the big company CEO approach might work too..big question is would someone like that be patient enough with such a corrupt system and slacking federal government work force? There are some very good federal civil servants but too many that are just there for the paycheck, hate their jobs and hate the citizens they are there to serve. Hell, in Chicago it only takes a few trips to the post office to realize how truly bad the situation is. One mean clerk working the counter, 10 customers waiting in line for 30 minutes each, 2 coin operated stamp vending machines and both of them are broken, managers/supervisors no where to be seen, etc.. In a big US public company hiring and firing is relatively possible and you have incentive systems that can be used to drive performance also. Fed Gov't jobs and payroll, not so much.

pup wrote:Been saying it for a while. We don't need a President. We need a CEO and a bunch of vice presidents.

This is not a country, it is a business. That needs Marketing and Technology and Sales and Human Resources.

Find me the best CEO of a large corporation, but not one that started that company we do not need a start up, who has been successful leading different companies of escalating size. That person will have this shit turned around by June 2013.

We have a CEO. That is the president, he is the head of the executive branch. If you are talking in terms of attitude, I couldn't disagree with you more. While the descriptions might seem similar, the stakeholders are vastly different. CEOs only really have to do one thing. Increase the ROI for the shareholders. The Prez is supposed to represent the will of the people (which is radically diverse compared to ROI), but follow the framework of the Constitution.

And America is no where close to being a business. What is our product? If you want the US run like a business, to make money, what do you want it to do with that money? Provide more services? Take in less revenues? Just sit on the money and stockpile wealth? (This argument does sound a little "S"-wordish)

Not to mention that the job of the President is vastly harder when it comes to enacting laws that it is for a CEO to enact measures at a company. The CEO was hired by the board of directors, who have one goal: return on investment. The President has to get legislation through the House and the Senate, and their members. Those members have a lot of interests, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that they are only acting in the interest of their constituents. Even then, the goals are all over the place depending on where the member is from and what the political leanings of their area is. Get your CEO in there and see what happens when he isn't a god answering only to the board, just make sure to keep an eye on his blood pressure.

Business and government are two different things, and should probably stay as far away from each other as possible.

swerb wrote:And the US should absolutely start paying government officials top dollar. It would finally drive some actual talent out of the private sector. Along with this change, I would start a task force (led by the best) to police campaign finance, lobbying, kickbacks, and corruption. I'd have a one strike policy. Get caught, and you, as well as your big new politician salary are OUT.

I don't think I have ever heard this argument. The one I always here is about how the public sector is gobbling up all the good talent with its better pay (when you include benefits) and the low risk of losing your job.

I also like your idea for campaign finance reform, but I just don't see it being feasible at all. If everyone gets the same money to run, then everyone is going to run. It would become a huge sinkhole in the budget that would mostly go to ex-spouses taking out attack ads on the other and kooks telling people they will go to hell for not voting for them. It takes us from having maybe 5 or 10 too few candidates to having thousands if not hundreds of thousands too many. Do you want a tiny old TV that looks and sounds like shit, but you can understand your shows, or a jumbotron with better than life resolution that can only play static?

I thought Bachmann was outstanding overall last night. She got back in the game temporarily after her disastrous effort in the last debate, but still has zero chance overall.

After watching last night, I was convinced. Romney is going to be the candidate, for sure. Perry is too scary. And with the economy in such peril, he has no chance to unseat the solid, steady, track record of turning things around Romney.

Romney is going to be the candidate, you can bank it. The good news on that is that (along with Gingrich) he's the best person to lead the country right now, and that he has the best chance of that group to beat Obama - with the economy as issues 1, 2, and 3 right now. The bad news is that it eliminates Gingrich as a VP candidate ... as both are stiff as boards and lack personality. They'll pick someone likable from the south, maybe even Pawlenty. And Romney could get Al Gore'd - lose a close election because of all the idiots that vote for the more personally likable candidate.

Romney is not as far to the right as he is portraying himself at the debates. The primary system dictates that you do that to survive it. He's the best candidate in a shitty field. It's gonna be him and Obama next fall. Worse off the economy is, better Romney's chances.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

swerb wrote:I thought Bachmann was outstanding overall last night. She got back in the game temporarily after her disastrous effort in the last debate, but still has zero chance overall.

After watching last night, I was convinced. Romney is going to be the candidate, for sure. Perry is too scary. And with the economy in such peril, he has no chance to unseat the solid, steady, track record of turning things around Romney.

Romney is going to be the candidate, you can bank it. The good news on that is that (along with Gingrich) he's the best person to lead the country right now, and that he has the best chance of that group to beat Obama - with the economy as issues 1, 2, and 3 right now. The bad news is that it eliminates Gingrich as a VP candidate ... as both are stiff as boards and lack personality. They'll pick someone likable from the south, maybe even Pawlenty. And Romney could get Al Gore'd - lose a close election because of all the idiots that vote for the more personally likable candidate.

Romney is not as far to the right as he is portraying himself at the debates. The primary system dictates that you do that to survive it. He's the best candidate in a shitty field. It's gonna be him and Obama next fall. Worse off the economy is, better Romney's chances.

As accurate as this may or may not be (and I assume it is a pretty fair assessment knowing Swerb) is it that hard to figure why this country is so deep in a toilet?

Much like the last election. Should be about the easiest, most winnable election in the history of elections for a Republican candidate. And they have propped up John McCain with a dunce VP candidate and now we are getting the "best candidate from a shitty field".

Yet, 47% of the country will talk about how stupid the voters are for putting x y or z into office.

When it takes this much effort to put forth a candidate, the system is broke. When you have to take things like "we need a well liked southerner" on the ticket because the other cat is a stiff, the system is broke.

pup wrote:Been saying it for a while. We don't need a President. We need a CEO and a bunch of vice presidents.

This is not a country, it is a business. That needs Marketing and Technology and Sales and Human Resources.

Find me the best CEO of a large corporation, but not one that started that company we do not need a start up, who has been successful leading different companies of escalating size. That person will have this shit turned around by June 2013.

We have a CEO. That is the president, he is the head of the executive branch. If you are talking in terms of attitude, I couldn't disagree with you more. While the descriptions might seem similar, the stakeholders are vastly different. CEOs only really have to do one thing. Increase the ROI for the shareholders. The Prez is supposed to represent the will of the people (which is radically diverse compared to ROI), but follow the framework of the Constitution.

And America is no where close to being a business. What is our product? If you want the US run like a business, to make money, what do you want it to do with that money? Provide more services? Take in less revenues? Just sit on the money and stockpile wealth? (This argument does sound a little "S"-wordish)

Not to mention that the job of the President is vastly harder when it comes to enacting laws that it is for a CEO to enact measures at a company. The CEO was hired by the board of directors, who have one goal: return on investment. The President has to get legislation through the House and the Senate, and their members. Those members have a lot of interests, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that they are only acting in the interest of their constituents. Even then, the goals are all over the place depending on where the member is from and what the political leanings of their area is. Get your CEO in there and see what happens when he isn't a god answering only to the board, just make sure to keep an eye on his blood pressure.

Business and government are two different things, and should probably stay as far away from each other as possible.

swerb wrote:And the US should absolutely start paying government officials top dollar. It would finally drive some actual talent out of the private sector. Along with this change, I would start a task force (led by the best) to police campaign finance, lobbying, kickbacks, and corruption. I'd have a one strike policy. Get caught, and you, as well as your big new politician salary are OUT.

I don't think I have ever heard this argument. The one I always here is about how the public sector is gobbling up all the good talent with its better pay (when you include benefits) and the low risk of losing your job.

I also like your idea for campaign finance reform, but I just don't see it being feasible at all. If everyone gets the same money to run, then everyone is going to run. It would become a huge sinkhole in the budget that would mostly go to ex-spouses taking out attack ads on the other and kooks telling people they will go to hell for not voting for them. It takes us from having maybe 5 or 10 too few candidates to having thousands if not hundreds of thousands too many. Do you want a tiny old TV that looks and sounds like shit, but you can understand your shows, or a jumbotron with better than life resolution that can only play static?

I would argue that the United States is the largest and most complex business enterprise in the history of mankind. Elected officials say that government can't be run like a business. I can see why. In business, people are held accountable. In Washington, nobody is held accountable. In business people are judged on results. In Washington, people are judged on their ability to get reelected. With the enormous percentage rated Congress gets reelected, you would think they were running the most successful enterprise in the world - and they reward themselves handsomely for it.

I get many of your points, and it's not business exclusively, but make no mistake about it, there's business sense involved, and AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, ILO, business sense is enormously valuable.

take government spending as an example. Christ, before all the wars began - BEFORE that spending, government spending was still a quarter of the GNP. And what has it bought us. Look, when Reagan started it, at least he had a valid reason. By accelerating the arms race he bankrupted the Soviets. Problem is, that spending continued with no good reason - and as i said, hasn't gotten us anything.

Take the guy who has always been generous, helpful and caring allhis life - as our country has been. Suddenly he finds himself bankrupt from making bad investments and running up debt. Can he still give to the United Way? Salvation Army? Can he help anyone anymore? No, and what's worse he's the one who now needs help. That's gonna be the fate if we keep ignoring hard business sense. After WWII Japan and Germany lay in ruins. Today they are economic superpowers. Did they discover a secret? There's no friggin' secret. They made hard choices, ours leaders made easy ones. For their sizes they invested twice as much throughout the 80's to build their countries. We think short term, they thought long term.

We've allowed ourselves to be lulled into thinking that bills would never come due. We've been led to believe we could keep borrowing our children's money to finance a lifestyle we haven't earned and can't afford.

At the end of the day, as you mention, the biggest problem is all the nonsense - POLITICAL nonsense, the president has to deal with vs. the CEO. But make no mistake about it, many of the things that NEED to happen for this country to get back on track, and have any hope of kick-starting the standard of living increase is directly tied to business.

Because absent of business - what we have going on now, is getting all of us nowhere fast - with no hope of reversal.

Yeah, businesses are really held accountable. Shit, you can run your company into the ground by making stupid decisions that cost millions of Americans their pensions and savings, destroy the American economy, then you go to the Feds and beg for a bailout on our dime.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Yeah, businesses are really held accountable. Shit, you can run your company into the ground by making stupid decisions that cost millions of Americans their pensions and savings, destroy the American economy, then you go to the Feds and beg for a bailout on our dime.

swerb wrote:I thought Bachmann was outstanding overall last night. She got back in the game temporarily after her disastrous effort in the last debate, but still has zero chance overall.

The jumping the shark comment happened after the debate. I agreed her debate performance put some big holes in Perry, ones that will be exploited by Romney (doubt anyone else gets close enough, but I can pray ( ) fr Newt) or Obama.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."